From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29858 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2007 00:29:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29848 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2007 00:29:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:29:24 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6312898022; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:29:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263CD98021; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:29:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J2yQa-0000OA-SW; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:29:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [RFA] patch for 2384, dangling TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE Message-ID: <20071214002920.GA1208@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jim Blandy References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:10:55PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote: > Ok to check in? Or any suggestions for what's needed instead? Your patch seems strange to me. Do we need the new fieldno / basetype, or not? If we don't, we shouldn't be calculating it at all; if we do, there should be something detectable which breaks when you do this. It's not just a cache, since the interface doesn't offer any other way to return the new fieldno / basetype besides in-place modification. I happen to know that for GNU v3 - which is in practice the only thing that any GDB users use nowadays - we don't need these fields any more. We still use them, but we could do without, since the ABI is quite clear on where to find the vtable pointer. For GNU v2, which is theoretically still supported, we do need this information. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery